who planted the church in Rome ?

Meg

Well-Known Member
Its traditionally thought that Peter did, which is half the reason the RCC makes such a big deal over Peter, but neither Scripture nor Eusebius states for sure.
 

Elijah's Mantle

Well-Known Member
:((

thank you meg I had wondered as to why they make claims found nowhere in the scripture to speak of :scratch: no one knows for sure who planted the church in Rome
 

Elijah's Mantle

Well-Known Member
:elmogrin

OOh a Gold mine of info GlennO :jerry this is awesome :((
just what I was a needing

I had another debogglement :scratch: Ill post it in another topic though so as not to confuse myself or others :lol: but it is an important one :((
 

mattfivefour

Administrator
Staff member
I would suggest that the Church in Rome was planted by those "visitors" from Rome who were in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost and were witnesses to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles and those who were gathered with them. Reading Acts 2:7-11 we can note that verse 10 includes the words "... strangers from Rome ..." The NASB is a little more accurate with the words " ... and visitors from Rome ..." The Greek word literally refers to people from Rome (and the other named places) who were temporarily in Jerusalem. (Obviously for the Feast of Shavu'ot, which we call Pentecost, which was one of three annual festivals that required Hebrew men to travel to Jerusalem.)

Therefore I would suggest that the Church in Rome was the result of those Roman visitors who accepted Christ as their Savior—being either among the 3,000 men that day or the additional 5,000 a few days later—who then returned to Rome and brought with them the gospel which they shared in obedience to Christ. No doubt evangelists went to Rome from the early Church in Jerusalem, as well. Possibly even an apostle. But when Paul ended his letter to the Church at Rome (written from Corinth during the winter of 57-58 A.D.) he named over two dozen individual Christians in Rome and not one of the apostles was mentioned. Doesn't it seem odd that if Peter were there that Paul would not have greeted him by name. Read the list of names for yourself in Romans 16:1-16. Yet, perhaps there is a clue as to an evangelist who was there: Romans 16:3 says "Greet Prisca and Aquila ..." You may recall from Acts 18 that Aquila and his wife Priscilla were evangelists who traveled with Paul, and from 1 Corinthians and 2 Timothy we learn that they moved around the known world quite a bit in the service of the gospel. Prisca is a shortened form of Priscilla. Therefore these two evangelists were in Rome in 57 A.D., roughly 24 years after the Church began in Jerusalem. Perhaps they were responsible for planting it; but I doubt it. More likely they were there to teach the people the Word of God as it applied to Christ and His followers and thus give them the doctrine of the New Testament. After all, that they were teachers is clear from Acts 18: "Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. —Acts 18:24-26 NASB
 

Elijah's Mantle

Well-Known Member
Doesn't it seem odd that if Peter were there that Paul would not have greeted him by name. Read the list of names for yourself in Romans 16:1-16. Yet, perhaps there is a clue as to an evangelist who was there: Romans 16:3 says "Greet Prisca and Aquila ..." You may recall from Acts 18 that Aquila and his wife Priscilla were evangelists who traveled with Paul, and from 1 Corinthians and 2 Timothy we learn that they moved around the known world quite a bit in the service of the gospel. Prisca is a shortened form of Priscilla. Therefore these two evangelists were in Rome in 57 A.D., roughly 24 years after the Church began in Jerusalem. Perhaps they were responsible for planting it; but I doubt it. More likely they were there to teach the people the Word of God as it applied to Christ and His followers and thus give them the doctrine of the New Testament. After all, that they were teachers is clear from Acts 18: "Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. —Acts 18:24-26 NASB

:thinking:

very good point :((
you could in fact of solved the mystery :elmogrin :((
scripture does name them to some extent
God Bless you Bro matt :elmogrin
 

Jan51

Well-Known Member
They would have left Jerusalem for Rome because they were from Rome and were only in Jerusalem for the feast.
 

Randy - Saved by Grace

Well-Known Member
I would suggest that the Church in Rome was planted by those "visitors" from Rome who were in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost and were witnesses to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles and those who were gathered with them. Reading Acts 2:7-11 we can note that verse 10 includes the words "... strangers from Rome ..." The NASB is a little more accurate with the words " ... and visitors from Rome ..." The Greek word literally refers to people from Rome (and the other named places) who were temporarily in Jerusalem. (Obviously for the Feast of Shavu'ot, which we call Pentecost, which was one of three annual festivals that required Hebrew men to travel to Jerusalem.)

Therefore I would suggest that the Church in Rome was the result of those Roman visitors who accepted Christ as their Savior—being either among the 3,000 men that day or the additional 5,000 a few days later—who then returned to Rome and brought with them the gospel which they shared in obedience to Christ. No doubt evangelists went to Rome from the early Church in Jerusalem, as well. Possibly even an apostle. But when Paul ended his letter to the Church at Rome (written from Corinth during the winter of 57-58 A.D.) he named over two dozen individual Christians in Rome and not one of the apostles was mentioned. Doesn't it seem odd that if Peter were there that Paul would not have greeted him by name. Read the list of names for yourself in Romans 16:1-16. Yet, perhaps there is a clue as to an evangelist who was there: Romans 16:3 says "Greet Prisca and Aquila ..." You may recall from Acts 18 that Aquila and his wife Priscilla were evangelists who traveled with Paul, and from 1 Corinthians and 2 Timothy we learn that they moved around the known world quite a bit in the service of the gospel. Prisca is a shortened form of Priscilla. Therefore these two evangelists were in Rome in 57 A.D., roughly 24 years after the Church began in Jerusalem. Perhaps they were responsible for planting it; but I doubt it. More likely they were there to teach the people the Word of God as it applied to Christ and His followers and thus give them the doctrine of the New Testament. After all, that they were teachers is clear from Acts 18: "Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. —Acts 18:24-26 NASB

Agree 100 percent
 

mattfivefour

Administrator
Staff member
GlennO experienced debilitating health issues that he did not want shared with his brothers and sisters here on RF. His issues relentlessly robbed him of his memory and his ability to think. I have now lost track of him and his wife. I believe he now resides in Heaven. Elijah's Mantle is a precious brother from Appalachia. But he was very reclusive. He used to be quite active here but has not posted anything since October 31, 2015. That said, he must still be around this old planet because he quietly visits from time to time to read. In fact, he was last here about 6 weeks ago. I pray on his next visit he says hi. He became very dear to me.
 

twerpv

Well-Known Member
Thanks Adrian. I really enjoy this forum and it provides a great resource to lean on along with my church and of course His word. I am curious when long time posters go away. Clearly if they have passed away, they are (prayerfully) in Heaven which is great for them. Makes me sad for some reason when I notice them missing. I’ve never met them, just read many of their insightful posts.
 

Brother Albert R.

Jesus loved us and said we should Love our enemies
:thinking:
wanted to ask a question about the book of Romans
who planted the church in Rome that Paul wrote to ?
2Tim.4:21 says...
Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren.

According to early church history Linus was the second bishop (Peter was the first) of Rome and Paul wrote 2 Timothy from the mamertine prison right before he was put to death. Even though Linus is mentioned, it does not mean that he was the founder of that church. We must keep in mind that the church in Rome was not the same Catholic church as we see today with the Vatican, Pope, cardinals and bishops. It was an underground church that met from house to house.
I hope this helps,
Brother AL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Linus
 

mattfivefour

Administrator
Staff member
Sara Ann, georgeO's explanation is one good and very possible answer; a number of solid Bible expositors believe that theory to be true. There many other solid expositors who believe "Babylon" was a code name for Rome, as evidenced in other first century writings. A (very) few believe it referred to Jerusalem, although upon examination of their argument I think that most unlikely.

The important thing is that we not get hung up on non-essentials. To where Peter was referring may have been important in his day, but to us it has far less relevance. What is important is the teaching contained in this epistle. Let us always seek the message (or messages) in Scripture and not get hung up on lesser details that have no direct bearing on that message.

God bless your seeking heart.
 

Brother Albert R.

Jesus loved us and said we should Love our enemies
Thanks Adrian. I really enjoy this forum and it provides a great resource to lean on along with my church and of course His word. I am curious when long time posters go away. Clearly if they have passed away, they are (prayerfully) in Heaven which is great for them. Makes me sad for some reason when I notice them missing. I’ve never met them, just read many of their insightful posts.
I agree with you twerpv..
I miss seeing posts by Andrew and Hol, both former mods, I hope they are doing well were ever they are. I pray for them often. Hol was always kind with me and my corny jokes while Andrew tried his best to keep me in line with the RF's theological position.
God bless them both...:cry
Brother Albert
 

Andy C

Well-Known Member
I agree with you twerpv..
I miss seeing posts by Andrew and Hol, both former mods, I hope they are doing well were ever they are. I pray for them often. Hol was always kind with me and my corny jokes while Andrew tried his best to keep me in line with the RF's theological position.
God bless them both...:cry
Brother Albert
I have exchanged several emails with Hol and she is doing fine, busy with her bible study and active in her church.
 
Top